Geforce FX - Page 3 - Simply Maya User Community

Introduction to Maya - Rendering in Arnold

This course will look at the fundamentals of rendering in Arnold. We'll go through the different light types available, cameras, shaders, Arnold's render settings and finally how to split an image into render passes (AOV's), before we then reassemble it i

Watch

# 31 04-12-2002 , 12:03 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

whats a 0.13micron fingy majigy? sounds like something from SG-1 user added image

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 32 04-12-2002 , 12:37 AM

SM Alumni
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Exeter, UK

Posts: 407

In laymens terms (or at least in terms I understand user added image

its the size at which the transistors are manufactured at.
the more complex the chip (ie the greater the number of transistors), the greater the need to shrink the size of the transistors to avoid/reduce heat issues, and with the complexity of the NV30, nvidia had to make the transistors smaller, which as you can see isnt a cheap thing to do!
I'm no electrician/phycisist so this may not be totally accurate but i think its about right..

Quote

# 33 04-12-2002 , 12:44 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

ohhhhhhh i seeeeeeeeeeeeeee user added image

its a bit stupid of nvidia, or any graphics card company to show off the gfx card by using the size of a component really! size does not matter user added image

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 34 04-12-2002 , 12:49 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 1,253

i am not a nanotechnology know-it-all, but i do know a bit about things... .13 micron process,, what kal said, is the size of the transistors in a chip... more the transistors the more processing power... since the previous size of the transistors were like .25 or something near to that number.. bigger the transistor the more heat it produces... now the .13 micron process has arrived more transistors can be put into a single chip...

hence the final result: FASTER AND ASS-KICKING PROCESSING!!!

Quote

# 35 04-12-2002 , 12:49 AM

SM Alumni
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Exeter, UK

Posts: 407

um... i think your kinda missing the point dude. it wasnt really an option for them. same goes for intel / amd or whoever - as their technology advances they have to find ways of making it smaller otherwise we'd all be sat with mini fusion reactors under our desks!

Quote

# 36 04-12-2002 , 12:58 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

lol i no what ur saying kal, what im sayin is seeing as this HAD to have been done, they shouldnt use it as a marketing technique, cos that is what theyre doin, theyre saying its so amazing and everythin cos its so small, but as you said, i had to have been done, therefore, nothing to boast about

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 37 04-12-2002 , 01:04 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 1,253

actually heat was a big problem for them(intel)... bcoz thats why the new northwood intel pentium IV processor(built on .13 micron process) are much more cooler than their any previous processor...

Quote

# 38 04-12-2002 , 01:05 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 1,253

actually heat was a big problem for them(intel)... bcoz thats why the new northwood intel pentium IV processor(built on .13 micron process) are much more cooler than their any previous processor...

so the first reason they did that is so that they can reduce heat, second it increases a bit of performance..

Quote

# 39 04-12-2002 , 01:06 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: CCS, Venezuela

Posts: 3,363

I would have to say that if I were a company, and we just developed a process to make our transistors smaller, thus reducing heat emmisions and therefore making our product better, I WOULD boast quite a lot about it.
Wouldn´t you?

adldesigner
Caracas, Venezuela
Hell .. not gone perse, but with a certainly lower post count per day.

Quote

# 40 04-12-2002 , 01:16 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

oh i thought this process had been around for ages just not utilized in gfx cards til now
silly me <slaps himself> ow

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 41 04-12-2002 , 08:08 AM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: London, UK

Posts: 3,198

Btw, it's not the size of the transistors. It's the smallest width of a single conductor inside the chip. Anyway, another thing which calls for smaller microns is the speed which the chips are operating. With these kinds of speeds the distance which the signal has to travel starts to count. Smaller microns -> shorter distances -> more speed...

Kari
- My Website
- My IMDB

Do a lot, Fail a lot and Learn a lot!

Quote

# 42 04-12-2002 , 09:03 AM

SM Alumni
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Exeter, UK

Posts: 407

thanks for the clarification Kbrown user added image

Quote

# 43 04-12-2002 , 01:23 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2002

Location: Faringdon, UK

Posts: 1,480

ooh technical stuff, better stay out of this one user added image

- Simon

My Website: www.Glass-Prison.com

Quote

# 44 04-12-2002 , 04:03 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 1,253

thanx kari, thats what i have been trying to tell, user added image

Quote

# 45 05-12-2002 , 01:06 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: MELville

Posts: 1,100

Originally posted by kal
According to HardOCP (though not sure how much i trust this site...) Nvidia spent over 4 billion USD researching and developing the NV30

Originally Posted by

from what I head they spend $400,000,000 USD not 4 billion user added image

whatever they spent, it better be supa fast user added image

(I head that it scored about 3 times better than the Wildcat 6210!! user added image